Support NeoGAF

[EviLore]

Lol, so... I think I got banned twice for the same post on Resetera. The first time was for two weeks, the second time... is for a month, I guess?

My infraction was acknowledging that an off-color joke that Netherrealm made was kind of funny, but that was sexist and I am a pig

Are you genuinely surprised? Do you think the moderation there is fair and reasonable, or that anyone is allowed to have a sense of humor?

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Lol at this place is angry

As if the rest of the internet is a paragon of calm rationed reasoning

 

[DoubleJTripleDistilled]

Remember the Fuck You song, Cee Lo Green, fun song. Less than 10 years and we are already at a point where talking about that song would get you banned from Resetera, 9 fucking years and we've come to a point where a song about a gold digger is now problematic!

Fucking what the fuck?!

Edit: Should clarify, I'm sure bashing the song is okay but saying you liked it would get you a ban. Fuck

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Are you genuinely surprised? Do you think the moderation there is fair and reasonable, or that anyone is allowed to have a sense of humor?

I just wonder how these people exist in the real world. Like, they can't hide behind their monitors all day, every day. I genuinely don't know how one could survive being so delicate.

 

[Melon]

The thing I find most ironic about Ree is the fact that they are the very thing they have such a deep-rooted hate for. Majority of it comes from them projecting their own toxic traits on to people who are doing much better in life than them. It's a very sad thing to watch, really.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

I just checked REEE’s off-topic forum. Only saw 1 anti-trump thread on the first page.

 

[Rest]

Are you genuinely surprised? Do you think the moderation there is fair and reasonable, or that anyone is allowed to have a sense of humor?

So you've been there it seems...

Tell us, who do you post as on Reset? I'd like to know.

 

[Mista]

Lol, so... I think I got banned twice for the same post on Resetera. The first time was for two weeks, the second time... is for a month, I guess?

My infraction was acknowledging that an off-color joke that Netherrealm made was kind of funny, but that was sexist and I am a pig

Hold on I’ll act shocked as if the moderation there is fair and not ran by adults that acts like 12 year olds

Okay I’m done

 

[Papa]

So you've been there it seems...

Tell us, who do you post as on Reset? I'd like to know.

You know it’s a publicly visible forum right?

 

[brap]

You know it’s a publicly visible forum right?

All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.

 

[Murdoch]

The first time I've been banned from anything, ever... be it online or in real life, arrested or in official trouble.

And it was on the resetera forums for not understanding what an acronym was. The reason for banning was 'concern trolling'.

I don't even know what that even means? I've asked for my account to be deleted regardless, they are a really angry bunch of folks who don't understand the irony of their aggression; i'd rather not be a part of that!

 

[Redneckerz]

Are you genuinely surprised? Do you think the moderation there is fair and reasonable, or that anyone is allowed to have a sense of humor?

To offer a nuance, there are staff members on ERA that are perfectly reasonable people, atleast from my experience. Just like how ERA errornously takes GAF as a whole in their criticism, the opposite is also true. There is proper staff there. Its just that they are only in a position to moderate within limits.

The real powers that be are dictated by a small group of people.

So you've been there it seems...

Tell us, who do you post as on Reset? I'd like to know.

You don't have to be on Reset to know how a group of people dictate the tone for the rest of the site. Its just that this nuance is not mentioned often, but that's the reality of the situation.

There are decent chaps at ERA. But as is standard in recent times, the most vocal get the most attention and thus cultivate the negative imagery associated with Reset.

The first time I've been banned from anything, ever... be it online or in real life, arrested or in official trouble.

And it was on the resetera forums for not understanding what an acronym was. The reason for banning was 'concern trolling'.

I don't even know what that even means? I've asked for my account to be deleted regardless, they are a really angry bunch of folks who don't understand the irony of their aggression; i'd rather not be a part of that!

You sound... concerned. Does that not mean that their ban reason was correct for once?

 

[EviLore]

To offer a nuance, there are staff members on ERA that are perfectly reasonable people, atleast from my experience. Just like how ERA errornously takes GAF as a whole in their criticism, the opposite is also true. There is proper staff there. Its just that they are only in a position to moderate within limits.

Relevance?

 

[Redneckerz]

Relevance?

You were referring to the moderation as a whole.

 

[Mista]

To offer a nuance, there are staff members on ERA that are perfectly reasonable people, atleast from my experience. Just like how ERA errornously takes GAF as a whole in their criticism, the opposite is also true. There is proper staff there. Its just that they are only in a position to moderate within limits.

Mind if you wrote the names of the people you mean? Just curious to see who are those reasonable mods

 

[Yoshi]

Mind if you wrote the names of the people you mean? Just curious to see who are those reasonable mods

I cannot talk for Redneckerz , but I remember during my time there, that I had very reasonable discourse with Aiii after he moderated one of my postings.

 

[Mista]

I cannot talk for Redneckerz , but I remember during my time there, that I had very reasonable discourse with Aiii after he moderated one of my postings.

Aiii is cool. Not one of the sick fucks i'll give him that

 

[Redneckerz]

Mind if you wrote the names of the people you mean? Just curious to see who are those reasonable mods

Plagiarize, for one.

I cannot talk for Redneckerz , but I remember during my time there, that I had very reasonable discourse with Aiii after he moderated one of my postings.

I have seen some debatable postings but yeah, i can remember him being on the good end of the stick.

 

[Mista]

Plagiarize, for one.

I second that. Good lad

 

[Redneckerz]

I second that. Good lad

In that sense its rather disappointing that the site is targeted wholesale, similar to how certain ERA users see GAF. Wholesale. Like everything is bad from the get go. That simply isn't true.

 

[Papa]

In that sense its rather disappointing that the site is targeted wholesale, similar to how certain ERA users see GAF. Wholesale. Like everything is bad from the get go. That simply isn't true.

Are you seriously both sidesing right now? One site enforces strict speech and thought codes; the other does not. That does not mean they are equal but opposite.

 

[Redneckerz]

Are you seriously both sidesing right now? One site enforces strict speech and thought codes; the other does not. That does not mean they are equal but opposite.

That's what i am saying, so you aren't reading my posts correctly.

 

[Yoshi]

Are you seriously both sidesing right now? One site enforces strict speech and thought codes; the other does not. That does not mean they are equal but opposite.

It depends on the context. Redneckerz was talking about the unfair generalisation of forum posters or even staff on the other forum respectively. In that regard, members on both sites act ignorant of the other by painting with broad strokes. Both sides have very different moderation issues though, that's for sure. While Resetera is extremely strict on social justice issues and often times people get banned for negligible things (or even straight up bullshit, as in Huelen's case), moderation here lets certain people bully others and stealth deletes unwanted yet unproblematic postings.

 

[Papa]

It depends on the context. Redneckerz was talking about the unfair generalisation of forum posters or even staff on the other forum respectively. In that regard, members on both sites act ignorant of the other by painting with broad strokes. Both sides have very different moderation issues though, that's for sure. While Resetera is extremely strict on social justice issues and often times people get banned for negligible things (or even straight up bullshit, as in Huelen's case), moderation here lets certain people bully others and stealth deletes unwanted yet unproblematic postings.

1. Define bullying.

2. Be clear about who is bullying whom.

3. Give examples of stealth deleted posts. I’m not going to trust your judgment of “unproblematic”.

 

[Yoshi]

1. Define bullying.

Harassing, insulting, piling on a person with repeated ad hominem attacks.

2. Be clear about who is bullying whom.

There are several examples, one if which is you Nobody_Important

3. Give examples of stealth deleted posts. I’m not going to trust your judgment of “unproblematic”.

Hard to quote a deleted post. I will quote you where you quote a stealth deleted post:

White school children are taken to a Mosque & made to repeat the phrase 'Allahu Akbar' over and over.

If you’re going to keep religion out of schools, you should probably do that unilaterally.

www.neogaf.com

 

[Papa]

Harassing, insulting, piling on a person with repeated ad hominem attacks.
There are several examples, one if which is you Nobody_Important

Hard to quote a deleted post. I will quote you where you quote a stealth deleted post:

White school children are taken to a Mosque & made to repeat the phrase 'Allahu Akbar' over and over.

If you’re going to keep religion out of schools, you should probably do that unilaterally.

www.neogaf.com

And here again you show your complete and utter lack of understanding of human socialisation. NI cops the shit he does because of the behaviours that he refuses to take responsibility for and fix, and he doesn’t just cop it from me. You label it bullying; I label it corrective social forces that only continue because he refuses to learn. Genuine bullying has no constructive goal in mind. Weak people like you are the reason we have so many fragile narcissists running around these days because you label everything even remotely confrontational as bullying and don’t allow children to learn from their social mistakes. You are a coward, pure and simple, and you create the problems then complain about the social forces that are supposed to fix them. Pathetic.

And I have no idea why that post you linked was deleted. Perhaps because he was being a snide little cunt without justification again? I suppose they could ban him instead. Would you prefer that?

 

[Redneckerz]

And here again you show your complete and utter lack of understanding of human socialisation. NI cops the shit he does because of the behaviours that he refuses to take responsibility for and fix, and he doesn’t just cop it from me. You label it bullying; I label it corrective social forces that only continue because he refuses to learn. Genuine bullying has no constructive goal in mind. Weak people like you are the reason we have so many fragile narcissists running around these days because you label everything even remotely confrontational as bullying and don’t allow children to learn from their social mistakes. You are a coward, pure and simple, and you create the problems then complain about the social forces that are supposed to fix them. Pathetic.

And I have no idea why that post you linked was deleted. Perhaps because he was being a snide little cunt without justification again? I suppose they could ban him instead. Would you prefer that?

Would it be more believable if it was anyone else other than NI?

 

[Papa]

Would it be more believable if it was anyone else other than NI?

Would what be more believable?

 

[Redneckerz]

Would what be more believable?

If the examples were not about NI but about others.

 

[Papa]

If the examples were not about NI but about others.

Cite away, Redknickers

 

[Yoshi]

And here again you show your complete and utter lack of understanding of human socialisation.

Good thing you are expert then.

NI cops the shit he does because of the behaviours that he refuses to take responsibility for and fix, and he doesn’t just cop it from me.

In fact, others chiming in on your bullying is not making it any less of bullying, on the contrary. Moreover, you are not just bullying NI, you are an extraordinary bully.

You label it bullying; I label it corrective social forces that only continue because he refuses to learn. Genuine bullying has no constructive goal in mind.

Bullying has a constructive goal in mind and it is the same goal that you apparently have in mind with a gigantic share of your postings, especially as of late: To self-agrandise, to give the impression of a tough guy, to gain recognition of others in a group, to amuse yourself and likeminded people.

Weak people like you are the reason we have so many fragile narcissists running around these days because you label everything even remotely confrontational as bullying and don’t allow children to learn from their social mistakes.

I do confront objectionable behaviour, as I do right now. And I do it even if the target is not someone who is treated terribly by the majority of the surrounding group anyway,but is instead someone who enjoys preferential treatment. Attacking someone who is being attack constantly is not being tough, it is acting tough.

You are a coward, pure and simple, and you create the problems then complain about the social forces that are supposed to fix them. Pathetic.

Coward? That's an ingenious claim, what do you think do I fear and avoid here?

 

[Redneckerz]

Cite away, Redknickers

I am just saying, i don't think the quarrel you have against NI is the only quarrel you have with someone.

 

[Papa]

Triggering zetas is my forte

 

[Noboru Wataya]

Triggering zetas is my forte

Quarrel with me... if you dare.

 

[Yoshi]

Triggering zetas is my forte

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

 

[Papa]

^

See

 

[Bill O'Rights]

I'm not really sure what 'stealth deletes' mean in this context. Maybe it's a misunderstanding of how software works? I mean, when you delete a post, it removes it from the thread. If it was still visible (to people other than mod/admin) then it wouldn't be a good delete feature would it? We try to leave as much as possible but each post is taken in context and at face value. In terms of 'stealth', which is a heavy accusation when you aren't aware of what's happening or blatantly false if you do, here is a run through of the process.


If a post is deleted, the thread is given a quick glance to see what effect and quantity of responses are affected. Sometimes there may be one or two follow up posts that we remove as well if it's still fairly recent to avoid a derail. Sometimes if the spat is between individuals and the thread has moved on, it's more trouble to delete five or so posts across pages, so it's more effective to remove that one thread and inform the author what was wrong with it. When we do delete posts, we use the below functionality 'Notify author of this action. Reason: ' and type a message which should arrive in their notifications. This is as far removed from 'stealth' as possible. What you're complaining about is that you personally don't know. This isn't high school. The communications between the mod deleting the post and the author is private, the onus or decision to share that lies with the user concerned. Maybe they do get shared via PM - we don't know - but if they aren't then it's a safe bet they appreciate the privacy afforded when this happens instead of public callouts.

In rare circumstances we forego notification, especially when the posts are low effort or deliberate trolling. We will put in the same effort as the poster who made the original reply. For another example - beyond NI, as people seem to be insinuating there is bullying - there was a GIF posted in a thread yesterday which we felt crossed the line. Someone has quoted that in a spoiler further down the chain. This was also removed and we engaged with the user with a note acknowledging it was not malicious just misguided in the search for a cheap laugh.


Lastly, we moderate on terms of content. The above applies to edits as well as deletions. If there is a point being made poorly and has an insult at the end, we'd prefer to leave the point being made and just edit out the insult. Again, we use the notify feature for this when we use it. However in cases where people are just being antagonistic and there is nothing of note worth saving then yes, a deletion will be used. Usually the mod will just give a nudge and either ask the poster to make another attempt, drop the cheap shots etc. in the notification. It saves a thread ban and makes people put more effort into their response. Often they don't bother again, which proves that really they just wanted to have their swipe of little substance and move on. Moderation is about removing and managing friction most of the time, and in some cases it can pre-empting issues and using light touches before heavy smashes to course correct.

Which lastly brings us onto the public notes we add to posts. Again, these aren't used frivolously. And it's why we didn't choose to go with threadmarks etc. Smattering a thread with heavy banners, threadmarks of interest (which are subject to shaping the course of debate) and official communications just get in the way of the content and the debates. Public notes are not 'warnings' - we don't add like an account blackball or anything. We use these when a poster is testing patience cross threads, or when we want to illustrate what isn't going to be tolerated going forward. Lately we use them for reply bans so people don't quote and think they're being ignored.


There's always going to be some sense of unfairness, because there are so many variables when evaluating a post. In most cases, if we feel it's too far gone, or contributing nothing we afford the chance for users to re-iterate what they're trying to see without the emotion, insults or antagonism. If they persist then we have other options to ensure the impassioned and volatile exchange of ideas can be had without too much personal derail or pomposity.

 

[Yoshi]

Bill O'Rights What I meant with stealth is that it is an intransparent moderation action, when compared to a warning (or bans, which are public except in rare circumstances). Of course, if illegal content, or disturbing content is being posted (e.g. a gif that "goes too far"), just deleting is fine, but if it is merely an opinion (or expression of such) you do not like, such as with Nobody's posting, then deleting the post, without even adding a note to that is bad form in my eyes. By just deleting postings, it is also hard to see the required standard by moderation.

Considering it was on the topic of over moderation on Resetera: The many warning / ban bars used on Resetera at least make it clear what the moderation deems problematic and makes it transparent how the moderation acts. When you just delete unwanted postings (that are not e.g. NSFW, or contains sensible information, like the posting of mine which was once edited) it makes it harder to see what moderation deems out-of-line and to learn from it.

Deletion can also be done in non-stealth ways by removing the content of the posting and putting a disclaimer as to why it was deleted, but in the specific discussed case, I really do not see how what NI has written was in any way sensible so that it really needed removal rather than a marker why this posting is unwanted by moderation.

This is separate from the issue of tolerating bullying behaviour, so I do not write on that topic here.

 

[Bill O'Rights]

As mentioned, you seem to misunderstand the point being made. A deletion of the post is to remove it from view, and to notify the user what was wrong with it. Both these action were taken. Your position is that this is incorrect because then the post has been removed and it can't be viewed. But then advocate that a moderator goes in, edits the post out and leaves it blank/without the 'problematic' content. I fail to see how this resolves your point of contention. The content has still gone. All that remains is the 'brand' that a moderator has removed someone's post. Again, this links back to public shaming or people being nosey and wanting to know what's happened. We communicate with the parties involved. If you're not close enough to discuss this with the poster in question, it's not our obligation to fill you in on any transgressions. What you mean is that the action is intransparent to you.


We would expect people who have been here a long time to be able to distinguish between what is acceptable and not acceptable. Unless, they had no real investment in the community and weren't really interested in understanding the dynamics in place. The poster (NI) was informed from the logs via notification. You should review the thread and see the difference between 12Goblins and BraveOne who actually contributed to the topic from an opposing/contrary viewpoint to the general opinion. What opinion or point was really made in the post that was deleted.


For information the *.gif was not 'disturbing' or 'illegal'. Please do not frame a supposition this way in an effort to make the situation different. The content was fine. It just contributed nothing to the topic and had potential to cause derailment or be viewed as antagonistic. The same moderation action was applied to both posts as they were of the same ilk. One post was an image, one was a text post. Perhaps you should examine the point of continuity around people who feel like this. If you fail to see this post in the wider context of the thread, or the replies and exchanges before then we can only be thankful you are not a moderator here and you'll forgive us for not taking any pointers from your good self. In the spirit of goodwill I have been fully open transparent in the post above in how things are managed here, that will not be changing but we've taken your points on board. If you have a real problem, then you'll have to evaluate the strength of your principles at this point. And with that, it's bedtime here so.....Night!

 

[lethial]

I read Bill O'Rights posts in his avatars voice.. singing as well.

 

[Trojita]

The only thing I had happen weird here is that I replied to a user that said something racist and a moderator removed both their racist comment in the original post and in my quote, which then made it look like I was pointing out something that didn't exist.

 

[Yoshi]

Your position is that this is incorrect because then the post has been removed and it can't be viewed. But then advocate that a moderator goes in, edits the post out and leaves it blank/without the 'problematic' content.

It depends on if I agree in principle that the content should eb removed at all. With NI's posting I see no reason to remove it, but if it is something really bad enough to necessitate removal, then a remark "removed for sexual content" or similar would be possible to still make clear why the content of the thread has changed. Not to shame the user, but to indicate the rationale. With NI's posting, which has already been quoted at least two times, you couldn't possibly prevent a derail by removing it, you just make the thread incoherent. And since NI's posting was clearly on topic, it wouldn't be derailment anyway.

We would expect people who have been here a long time to be able to distinguish between what is acceptable and not acceptable. Unless, they had no real investment in the community and weren't really interested in understanding the dynamics in place.

I have been here for well over a decade and the thing with this is that moderation practices changed several times in that time. Adaptation thus certainly is necessary even as a long-time member. Also, not only long-time members exist. New members also need to judge what is acceptable behaviour and what is not (and why).

Perhaps you should examine the point of continuity around people who feel like this. If you fail to see this post in the wider context of the thread, or the replies and exchanges before then we can only be thankful you are not a moderator here and you'll forgive us for not taking any pointers from your good self.

Sorry, I do not understand what you want to say here. Are you referring to the context of NI's posting or the unknown-to-me image posting?

If you have a real problem, then you'll have to evaluate the strength of your principles at this point.

I have a real problem, which is (mainly) that bullying / trollish behaviour is tolerated to an astounding degree, but I cannot see how this is related to the stength of my principles. If you want to indicate that you advise me to remove myself from the community if I have an issue with some people going rampant with aggressive personal attacks, then I have to say that this would not actually be following my principles. I have been a member of this community for fourteen years - almost half my life - and would rather give input towards improving the discourse than just pissing off.

 

[HUELEN10]

I read Bill O'Rights posts in his avatars voice.. singing as well.

It’s a pretty catchy song.

 

[Athena~]

To offer a nuance, there are staff members on ERA that are perfectly reasonable people, atleast from my experience. Just like how ERA errornously takes GAF as a whole in their criticism, the opposite is also true. There is proper staff there. Its just that they are only in a position to moderate within limits.

The real powers that be are dictated by a small group of people.

You don't have to be on Reset to know how a group of people dictate the tone for the rest of the site. Its just that this nuance is not mentioned often, but that's the reality of the situation.

There are decent chaps at ERA. But as is standard in recent times, the most vocal get the most attention and thus cultivate the negative imagery associated with Reset.

Read what Tyler was responding to. He was consoling the victim who got banned twice unfairly in a single post. Then WTF you just came in babbling about how not all of them are like that and how some of them are decent nonsense. Then Yoshi nodding his head kicking the victim to the curb and then proceeded to derail the whole topic with you. Typical #notallmen bullshit.

How would you think you and Yoshi just made the victim feel? If anything you two are the bullies and trolling since the discussion was never about how every single one of them sucks or how GAF is perfect.

It depends on if I agree in principle that the content should eb removed at all. With NI's posting I see no reason to remove it, but if it is something really bad enough to necessitate removal, then a remark "removed for sexual content" or similar would be possible to still make clear why the content of the thread has changed. Not to shame the user, but to indicate the rationale. With NI's posting, which has already been quoted at least two times, you couldn't possibly prevent a derail by removing it, you just make the thread incoherent. And since NI's posting was clearly on topic, it wouldn't be derailment anyway.

I have been here for well over a decade and the thing with this is that moderation practices changed several times in that time. Adaptation thus certainly is necessary even as a long-time member. Also, not only long-time members exist. New members also need to judge what is acceptable behaviour and what is not (and why).
Sorry, I do not understand what you want to say here. Are you referring to the context of NI's posting or the unknown-to-me image posting?
I have a real problem, which is (mainly) that bullying / trollish behaviour is tolerated to an astounding degree, but I cannot see how this is related to the stength of my principles. If you want to indicate that you advise me to remove myself from the community if I have an issue with some people going rampant with aggressive personal attacks, then I have to say that this would not actually be following my principles. I have been a member of this community for fourteen years - almost half my life - and would rather give input towards improving the discourse than just pissing off.

Make a new topic as you are totally going off the rails.

Besides if you want to talk about bullying, read this thread:

Joe Rogan Experience #1295 - Tulsi Gabbard

I'm currently listening right now, it's pretty interesting. Hearing such an open and thorough dialog with a presidential candidate is refreshing.

www.resetera.com

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Read what Tyler was responding to. He was consoling the victim who got banned twice unfairly in a single post. Then WTF you just came in babbling about how not all of them are like that and how some of them are decent nonsense. Then Yoshi nodding his head kicking the victim to the curb and then proceeded to derail the whole topic with you. Typical #notallmen bullshit.

How would you think you and Yoshi just made the victim feel? If anything you two are the bullies and trolling since the discussion was never about how every single one of them sucks or how GAF is perfect.

Lol, let's not start calling me a victim. I don't want to be part of the problem.

I'm sure some of the Resetera mods are pretty reasonable people. Doesn't mean the forum isn't overrun with shit. Ain't nothing wrong with a bit of nuance, rather than an us vs. them mentality.

 

[Redneckerz]

Read what Tyler was responding to. He was consoling the victim who got banned twice unfairly in a single post.

I don't call that consoling, rather, being surprised that the user in question thought what he/she thought.

Then WTF you just came in babbling about how not all of them are like that and how some of them are decent nonsense.

Apparently it is strange that when one refers to ERA as a whole that you make a nuance. Spoiler: This is exactly the kind of response you would also have on ERA if you dared to nuance about GAF.

I am sure you would want to see this always in a blanket black and white view, the reality is more nuanced. That's what i pointed out.

How would you think you and Yoshi just made the victim feel?

That it would be appreciated that we don't look at things in a blanket way but zoom in on the details and nuance whenever.

If anything you two are the bullies and trolling since the discussion was never about how every single one of them sucks or how GAF is perfect.

You may want to see who actually derailed the thing. And also be wary of the accusations you make if you believe that this post is somehow being a bully and trolling.

Lol, let's not start calling me a victim. I don't want to be part of the problem.

I'm sure some of the Resetera mods are pretty reasonable people. Doesn't mean the forum isn't overrun with shit. Ain't nothing wrong with a bit of nuance, rather than an us vs. them mentality.

That's exactly what i was postulating and i am glad you saw it that way instantly.

 

[Athena~]

Ain't nothing wrong with a bit of nuance, rather than an us vs. them mentality.

Nothing wrong with a bit of nuance right?

I just wonder how these people exist in the real world. Like, they can't hide behind their monitors all day, every day. I genuinely don't know how one could survive being so delicate.

You are referring to them as a whole. Not all of them are bad people, the way you generalize them and this us Vs. them mentality is problematic. Some of them are even decent people(I post there too and totally not the ones who called you a sexist and a pig)!

and nope I am not being an ass like the other 2 people offering the nuance no one asked for.

You were referring to the moderation as a whole.

Read what Tyler said again. He was only asking questions and he didn’t even made a generalization that you projected him to do.

Are you the kind of guy who go on #metoo and offer nuances inappropriately about how not all men are bad?

Besides being a troll what else you are trying to achieve here in this thread? Why not make a new topic about the nuances you love so much?

 

[Redneckerz]

Read what Tyler said again. He was only asking questions and he didn’t even made a generalization that you projected him to do.

Lets say he were. Is me adding a nuance so terrible that we need insert an accusation of trollism?

Are you the kind of guy who go on #metoo and offer nuances inappropriately about how not all men are bad?

If this isn't a loaded question, then depending on the situation, i might. But that goes without saying that i don't believe that the nuance i made was inappropiate. Even the person that was asked these questions does not seem to think this.

Besides being a troll what else you are trying to achieve here in this thread? Why not make a new topic about the nuances you love so much?

I can't give you a proper answer if you keep slinging accusations this way. Its needlessly aggressive.

 

[Solomeena]

Harassing, insulting, piling on a person with repeated ad hominem attacks.
There are several examples, one if which is you Nobody_Important

You are so full of it, all you do is defend Nobody_Important like he is your child and you act like he does nothing wrong. NI pretty much deserves most of the push back he gets here and it isn't bullying. You are just a walking and talking NI apologist, simple as that. You literally have this hard on for him and it is almost like you and him are one in the same.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Nothing wrong with a bit of nuance right?



You are referring to them as a whole. Not all of them are bad people, the way you generalize them and this us Vs. them mentality is problematic. Some of them are even decent people(I post there too and totally not the ones who called you a sexist and a pig)!

and nope I am not being an ass like the other 2 people offering the nuance no one asked for.

C'mon. It's pretty clear I'm referring to the hyper-sensitive among them.